Here's a place where I can post my thoughts on new papers, provide updates on my projects, and post info that will eventually be on my website The Theropod Database - http://theropoddatabase.com/ . It will center on theropods, but may delve into other topics as well such as phylogenetics.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Theropod Database pilfered again? Teihivenator edition

Back when I was sorting through obscure theropod species, I noticed the case of "Laelaps" macropus. Ignored for almost a century, I examined the syntypes at the AMNH and wrote the first substantive comparison and diagnosis on The Theropod Database back in 2009. Eight years later, and I see Yun (2017) has published a paper on the specimen and named it Teihivenator. Well, it's good someone finally did something with the taxon, except....

My proposed diagnosis- "lateral tibial malleolus at same level as medial
malleolus; paired proximoventral processes on pedal phalanges II-1 and III-2."
Yun's last two characters in his diagnosis- "lateral malleolus is at same level as medial malleolus; paired ventral processes proximally on all preserved pedal phalanges."
Hmmm...

My discussion- "The material is tyrannosauroid based on the anterior process of the lateral
tibial condyle..."
Yun's- "the material clearly belongs to tyrannosauroid based on the presence of the anterior process on the lateral tibial condyle.
Me- "All phalanges are ... more robust than similar-sized ornithomimids (e.g. Gallimimus'
holotype)."
Yun- "Also, preserved pedal phalanges are much more robust than similarly sized ornithomimosaurs..."
Me- "The proximal metatarsal is II, and has a sharper posterior
corner, more rounded anteromedial corner and shallower lateral notch than Alectrosaurus,
Appalachiosaurus and Tyrannosaurus."
Yun- "The posterior corner is more narrow and triangular compared to other derived tyrannosauroids, and the medial corner is more rounded. The notch for metatarsal III is much shallower than most tyrannosauroids."
Hmmm...

I want to make clear that this isn't a hack job like Easter's "Ajancingenia" copy-paste nonsense. Yun came up with quite a few features of his own and his own conclusion, that macropus is closer to tyrannosaurids than Dryptosaurus and thus deserves a new genus name. But I think it's inarguable Yun used the Database for information, but did not cite it or myself in the Acknowledgements.

There's "good" news though! As noted by Marjanovic on the DML, the name is not valid because there was no physical publication or ZooBank registration. So here's my proposal to Yun- Add me as a second author for a brief follow-up paper, we can correct a few things like -venator being Latin as opposed to Greek, add my high res photos from the AMNH to give the genus a proper illustrative debut, and with a ZooBank registration make it official. Deal?

[Edit- When I wrote this, I was unaware of Brownstein's preprint placed online today arguing macropus is a chimaera of tyrannosaur and ornithomimosaur specimens. While I haven't had a chance to study the chimaera issue, Brownstein does provide detailed descriptions and high resolution photographs, so that I don't think any further contribution by myself is necessary. So, uh, proposal retracted. Though if Yun does publish a corrective paper with ZooBank registry, I would like to be in the acknowledgements. Man, that story changed fast.Brownstein, 2017. Theropod specimens from the Navesink
Formation and their implications for the diversity and biogeography of ornithomimosaurs and tyrannosauroids on Appalachia. PeerJ Preprints.5:e3105v1.]

[Edit #2- News continues to fly in. As McCabe commented on below, Yun has left feedback on another preprint of Brownstein's indicating he thought the macropus syntypes were lost, though he really should have mentioned this in his paper. Creisler also informed me via the DML that Yun registered the genus on ZooBank, but without a mention of this in the paper itself it still violates ICZN Article 8.5.3 (a name must "be registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank) (see Article 78.2.4) and contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred."). Thus a corrigendum is still necessary, which Yun's been informed of. Whew. This is going to be a messy Database entry to write...]

13 comments:

This PeerJ preprint (https://peerj.com/preprints/3105/) isn't peer-reviewed, but it does have discussion on the validity of _Teihivenator_; the feedback section has discussion on the name validity situation. Apparently there's a plan for a lectotype designation.

Likewise, here (https://peerj.com/preprints/3097/) the author of the _Teihivenator_ paper appears in the feedback section (you might be able to contact him through PeerJ, then) and clarifies the Zoobank situation and the background surrounding the paper. He also mentions the Theropod Database, albeit for unrelated reasons, so he definitely uses it as a resource.

Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't seen either discussion, so that was useful. It's good to see Brownstein's on the case and aware of the lectotype issue, so it should all get sorted out. This is a pretty clear case of a failure of peer review in the Journal of Zoological and Bioscience Research.

Actually, some measurements of Teihivenator specimens are mentioned in literatures such as Cope (1870) and Gallagher provided a picture of whole specimens, with a scale bar nearby them. All the measurements/and morphotypes provided in my paper were inferred from Leidy (1865), Cope (1870), Gallagher (1997).

Another proof, Mickey, that much of your work is worthy of being published in peer-reviewed journals. *prod* *prod*

BTW, it's not just the "Greek". The Arapaho needs some work, too: "strong" isn't teihi-, it's apparently téí'- (high tone, glottal stop at the end of the root)... and why Arapaho in the first place for a dinosaur from New Jersey?

Actually, some measurements of Teihivenator specimens are mentioned in literatures such as

And after all the necessary conversion (I doubt Cope used millimeters in 1870! Probably twelfths of an inch or some such nonsense.) you still came up with the exact same values? That's hard to believe.

What's impossible to believe is that you came up with such similar wording in such a similar order as in the examples above. You have committed plagiarism. If any part of the "Teihivenator" material is diagnostic, Mickey will almost certainly have to be a coauthor.

e.g. Changyu YUN (2016)

You used the Theropod Database in the new paper, so you had to cite it in the new paper. That should be obvious.

Oh, I still haven't heard if the Journal of Zoological and Bioscience Research has a paper edition. If it does, the name will be validly published, and the ZooBank registration is irrelevant. If it doesn't, a new paper will be required – if any of the specimens can in fact serve as a lectotype in the first place.

Actually from what I can tell the Journal of Zoological and Bioscience Research appears to be published from a journal mill. It is headquartered from a postal box in Canada, yet not one of the editorial or management staff are based out of Canada.

In my opinion, if the name is not currently validly published, I would prefer to see an alternate name that is published in a journal that will have a print edition and is properly constructed from the language which it has been derived.

As others have stated (perhaps more diplomatically) the actual name (Teihivenator) is a complete mess - a total dog's breakfast. But there are larger concerns here. If the journal in question is a fake journal, then this is very disappointing. Further, if there is plagiarism involved, this is downright unethical - the manuscript should be retracted (if it's possible to retract a manuscript from a fake journal).

Overall, this highlights the perils of the 'gray literature'. I understand the temptation to describe (or re-describe) dinosaurs in ways that avoid the rigors of peer-reviewed scientific journals. But this 'Teihivenator' situation shows how things should *not* be done.